[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250618125806.2260184-1-m.majewski2@samsung.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 14:58:06 +0200
From: Mateusz Majewski <m.majewski2@...sung.com>
To: linux.amoon@...il.com
Cc: alim.akhtar@...sung.com, bzolnier@...il.com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
krzk@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, lukasz.luba@....com, rafael@...nel.org,
rui.zhang@...el.com, Mateusz Majewski <m.majewski2@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RRC v1 1/3] thermal/drivers/exynos: Remove unused base_second
mapping and references
> /* On exynos5420 the triminfo register is in the shared space */
> - if (data->soc == SOC_ARCH_EXYNOS5420_TRIMINFO)
> - trim_info = readl(data->base_second + EXYNOS_TMU_REG_TRIMINFO);
> - else
> + if (data->soc == SOC_ARCH_EXYNOS5420 ||
> + data->soc == SOC_ARCH_EXYNOS5420_TRIMINFO) {
> trim_info = readl(data->base + EXYNOS_TMU_REG_TRIMINFO);
> -
> - sanitize_temp_error(data, trim_info);
> + sanitize_temp_error(data, trim_info);
> + }
If I understand correctly, this means that the triminfo will no longer
be read on other SoCs calling this function (3250, 4412, 5250, 5260). Is
this intended?
By the way, are we sure that data->base_second really is unnecessary?
According to the bindings documentation (in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/samsung,exynos-thermal.yaml),
the different address is necessary because the triminfo registers are
misplaced on 5420.
Thank you,
Mateusz Majewski
Powered by blists - more mailing lists